Selection of optimal recording sites for limited lead body surface potential mapping in myocardial infarction and left ventricular hypertrophy

Abstract A lead selection algorithm was applied to find optimal recording sites for limited lead body surface potential maps. The studied population consisted of a set of 117 lead body surface potential maps recorded from 744 subjects (229, normal; 278, with myocardial infraction [MI]; and 237, with...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of electrocardiology 2008-05, Vol.41 (3), p.264-271
Main Authors: Finlay, Dewar D., PhD, Nugent, Chris D., DPhil, Donnelly, Mark P., BSc, Black, Norman D., PhD
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Body Surface Potential Mapping - instrumentation
Body Surface Potential Mapping - methods
Body Surface Potential Mapping - standards
Cardiovascular
Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted - methods
Electrocardiography - instrumentation
Electrocardiography - methods
Electrocardiography - standards
Electrodes
Humans
Hypertrophy, Left Ventricular - diagnosis
left ventricular hypertrophy
myocardial infarction
Myocardial Infarction - diagnosis
Optimal recording sites
Reproducibility of Results
Sensitivity and Specificity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract A lead selection algorithm was applied to find optimal recording sites for limited lead body surface potential maps. The studied population consisted of a set of 117 lead body surface potential maps recorded from 744 subjects (229, normal; 278, with myocardial infraction [MI]; and 237, with left ventricular hypertrophy [LVH]). One generic lead set derived from all disease groups was found. Also found were 3 disease-specific lead sets (normal, MI, and LVH) and one specific to abnormal subjects (MI and LVH combined). The performance of each lead set in estimating data from other disease groups was largely similar. This was with the exception of leads specific to LVH in the estimation of normal data and normal leads in the estimation of LVH data. Here, the difference was found to be significant ( P < .001). The top 6 recording sites in each lead set did not occupy the same positions as the 6 precordial leads. Although disease-specific lead sets are of limited practical use, this study has illustrated that, largely, there is little difference between the performance of different lead sets. The suboptimality of the 6 precordial leads has also been illustrated.
ISSN:0022-0736
1532-8430
DOI:10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2008.02.009